Smaller powerbooks on the way?
I was checking out the CeBit news site and came across this: NEW and IMPROVED 12" SCREENS!
Link is here: look at issue from 3/22, page 4, Chi-Mei article
A nice boost over the current screens, and just might pave the way for an xtra thin and light ibook/powerbook. Or leave some extra room for a PC Card slot, maybe even the new PC Card standard "express card" that is half the size of the current cards and actually follows the same standards as the PCI Express. Devices are expected to ship in late 2k4.
Other news of note: Sony and Phillips both have dual layer DVD players in production, scheduled to arrive in July 2004. Great news for all the aspiring movie back-uppers.
No news on better 15" screens but otherwise I think some cool 12" notebooks are on they way, higher resolution without eye-strain.
Link is here: look at issue from 3/22, page 4, Chi-Mei article
Quote:
The N121I1 notebook screen weighs in at 250g, is just 5.5mm thick and boasts a screen resolution of 1280 x 800.
The N121I1 notebook screen weighs in at 250g, is just 5.5mm thick and boasts a screen resolution of 1280 x 800.
A nice boost over the current screens, and just might pave the way for an xtra thin and light ibook/powerbook. Or leave some extra room for a PC Card slot, maybe even the new PC Card standard "express card" that is half the size of the current cards and actually follows the same standards as the PCI Express. Devices are expected to ship in late 2k4.
Other news of note: Sony and Phillips both have dual layer DVD players in production, scheduled to arrive in July 2004. Great news for all the aspiring movie back-uppers.
No news on better 15" screens but otherwise I think some cool 12" notebooks are on they way, higher resolution without eye-strain.
Comments
Furtheron, 1024x768 is perfect for me.
Having said that I would very happily have a 12 inch widescreen with 1280x800 res. That would suit me just fine...
Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
Furtheron, 1024x768 is perfect for me. [/B]
1024 is unusable under OS X.
12x1280x800 would be very sweet.
One problem is scrolling. With a short screen you have to scroll more. The 800 vertical pixels mitigate this, but do so at the cost of squintology.
A 12" widescreen would be a fair bit shorter than the 4:3 screen, and not too much wider. The only real reason to use it to deliver a smaller footprint without fvcking up the keyboard.
All that said, if they made it 3lbs with ALL the bells and whistles, including a fast CPU, a built in DVD-rw and LONGER battery life, I'd buy it.
If not, the current 4:3 screen is a better proposition for 12" and under sizes.
Funny, when I read the thread title I thought perhaps it would contain something interesting like a new battery tech, case material. When I read new and improved screens in the thread, I hoped to read about improved technology -- daylight readability, better brightness, bit depth, faster pixel response etc etc ... Not the the PB hasn't been fine for what I do, but I was hoping to hear of real improvement, not just the latest squintronic.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
1024 is unusable under OS X.
What are you doing on your machine that 1024x768 is "unusable?"
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
1024 is unusable under OS X.
Well, then I guess I better stop using my iBook with OS X.
Sheesh. C'mon.
And yet, somehow, it's a tremendously versatile and useful doorstop...
Originaly posted by Ensign Pulver
1024 is unusable under OS X.
Hmm, you must be one of those people who like the big 128x128 icons and the huge docks
MAtsu: improved screen technology...it is here, but Apple isn't using it. look at Fujitsu and Sony's notebook screens. Here are some threads I tried to start but nobody read. Anyway, check out the specs on these screens.
new screen info
Originally posted by Rhumgod
How can you say the 12"PB is unusable???? Tell that to the 10's of thousands of people who use them on a daily basis, myself included!
It's unusable for any kind of professional work or even basic multi-tasking. It's fine for soccer moms and home users, but you can't get any serious work done on a 1024 screen. Expose helps a little, but it's still no substitute for raw pixle count. Anyone who makes their living on their Mac, as I do, would agree.
12x1280x800 would be a barely acceptable trade off for a very small and sleek PB, even more so than the current model.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
It's unusable for any kind of professional work or even basic multi-tasking. It's fine for soccer moms and home users, but you can't get any serious work done on a 1024 screen. Expose helps a little, but it's still no substitute for raw pixle count. Anyone who makes their living on their Mac, as I do, would agree.
12x1280x800 would be a barely acceptable trade off for a very small and sleek PB, even more so than the current model.
sigh. i've made this point before, but it bears repeating... we wouldn't need extra screen real estate if app developers gave two sh!ts about designing an interface that didn't monopolize the screen with palettes and such.
one palette long ago semed like a good idea. now everyone and their mother wants their app to sport as many palettes as photoshop for "added convenience." yeah, until i have to upgrade to a 30" monitor and my cursor has to catch the next bus to the right side of the screen to change layer modes.
so in passing, get mad at the developers -- even apple, their iapps follow the same philosophy -- not the screens.
You just know that tons of people with perfectly valid credentials are now going to line up and kick your ass. A more sensible person could have expressed the same sentiments with class, clarity and without trolling.
Originally posted by mrmister
You just know that tons of people with perfectly valid credentials are now going to line up and kick your ass. A more sensible person could have expressed the same sentiments with class, clarity and without trolling.
mrmister - there was nothing classless, unclear or trollish about my comments, unlike your response.
Since you are obviously not one of the pros to whom I directed my comment, then your opinion is not really relevant. I'm sure your 1024 screen is wonderful for you. I'm not saying you should replace it. I'm just saying you don't pay the bills with 10 hour a day sessions on a 1024 screen, portable or desktop.
I defy anyone who makes their livelihood from their Mac to defend the exclusive use of a 1024 workspace.
[B]"It's unusable for any kind of professional work or even basic multi-tasking. It's fine for soccer moms and home users, but you can't get any serious work done on a 1024 screen. Expose helps a little, but it's still no substitute for raw pixle count. Anyone who makes their living on their Mac, as I do, would agree."QUOTE]
Hm. My AlBook 15" has a res of 1280 x 854. Which is 1.093.120 pixels, or 70.981 pixels per inch. The 12" PB has a res of 1024 x 768. Which is 786.432 pixels, or 65536 pixels per inch (an 8% difference). So I don't get why the resolution is too low. By that same standards, my resolution is unusable too, which it's not.
I've seen Dell laptops with resolutins at 1920 x 1280 in a 15" wide screen. But I think that's too much. In fact the guy had to increase the text and icon size by 20% to be able to read the text without too much strain on his eyes (XP has that feature).
I think Apple has chosen the resolution wise, its just enough to be productive with, and not too much.
That's my oppinion anyways.
.:BoeManE:.
Originally posted by BoeManE
[B]
"It's unusable for any kind of professional work or even basic multi-tasking. It's fine for soccer moms and home users, but you can't get any serious work done on a 1024 screen. Expose helps a little, but it's still no substitute for raw pixle count. Anyone who makes their living on their Mac, as I do, would agree."
Hm. My AlBook 15" has a res of 1280 x 854. Which is 1.093.120 pixels, or 70.981 pixels per inch. The 12" PB has a res of 1024 x 768. Which is 786.432 pixels, or 65536 pixels per inch (an 8% difference). So I don't get why the resolution is too low. By that same standards, my resolution is unusable too, which it's not.
I have the exact same 15" Powerbook, precisely because it has an acceptable screen resolution for professional work. The current 12" does not.
And it's not a 8% difference, it's a 39% difference. Your per square inch calculation is irrelevant. I want my pixles packed into a smaller screen, that's the whole point
A 12x1280x800 screen gives me essentially what I have now but in a MUCH smaller, sleeker 12" package. If Apple made such a Powerbook I'd buy it in a second.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver:
It's unusable for any kind of professional work or even basic multi-tasking. It's fine for soccer moms and home users, but you can't get any serious work done on a 1024 screen. Expose helps a little, but it's still no substitute for raw pixle count. Anyone who makes their living on their Mac, as I do, would agree.
So you are saying that if the Powerbook G4 12" had a higher resolution, then more people would buy it because they could work for 12 hours a day on it?
I don't know about your particular work environment, but I use a Powerbook G4 12" daily for web-design, Indesign, and a little Photoshop. When I'm using it at work the screen size doesn't limit me because I have a external VGA Dell monitor I use along with a nice external keyboard and mouse. This gives me a large work space and accurate color reproduction, the latter being a necessity for me to make a living with my PB. When I work at home I just keep one app open and do minor tweaks. If I'm doing anything major, I just plug it into one of the spare monitors I have laying around.
In short, if you are serious about making a living with your mac, screen resolution is a null point because it is so simple to overcome this. Now if you happen to work in the pro-audio area you really need to step up to the 15 inch PB anyway.
Disclaimer: Well I don't make a living off it. I'm an intern.